Re: Meeting tomorrow, Go/No Go decision

Looking forward to the discussion tomorrow and, hopefully, to seeing the 
four submissions made thus far.

In the meantime, I rendered PolitiFact's methodology in StratML format 
and included it in my listing at

I am especially interested in their Goal 5: Campaign Promises 
- Track campaign promises.  It is closely related to and would be 
well-supported by these StratML use cases:

    Goal 9:Candidates for Elective Office
    - Publish the issue statements of candidates for elective office as
    performance plans on the Web in open, standard, machine-readable format.

    Goal 10: Elected Representatives
    - Upon election, flesh out the candidates' plans to document more
    explicit stakeholder roles and performance indicators for their
    performance in office.

The International Fact-Checking Network's about statement has been 
available in StratML format since May 2018 but may be due for an update 

 From my perspective, a primary point is that none of this can be 
accomplished efficiently and effectively unless and until the underlying 
information is published in open, standard, machine-readable format.

It will be interesting to see if the CWCG's draft form might lead to the 
establishment of such a standard.  In the meantime, StratML (ISO 
17469-1) has already been established as a duly adopted international 
/de jure/ standard.  U.S. federal agencies have been directed by law 
to use something like it and legislation recently introduced 
by Senators Peters and Braun would require them to update their 
performance reports on a quarterly basis.

BTW, I've just about finished reading Nadine Strossen's book, /Hate: Why 
We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship. /


On 6/7/2022 10:44 AM, Scott Yates wrote:
> Dear members of the CredWeb group,
> We will be meeting tomorrow, a bit more than 24 hours after I hit send 
> on this email, at our usual time, 11 a.m. in the East, 8 a.m. in the 
> West and 9:30 p.m. for any lurkers hanging out in Yangoon.
> The agenda is here 
> <>.
> I've added an agenda item, which is this: Is this a good idea? Or in 
> NASA parlance, are we Go For Launch?
> I hesitate to launch because the willingness of people to fill out the 
> form is, well, soft, and that's just from people in this group. We've 
> only had four entries so far. Maybe it's just a little too much 
> homework to ask people to do? But if the people in this group won't do 
> it, why would anyone else?
> If you've been waiting for just the right moment to try it for 
> yourself, well, that moment is here. Try the form out here: 
> If you don't know what initiative you'd like to evaluate, we've got a 
> list of suggestions here 
> <>. 
> As you are filling out the form, I would suggest that you not think of 
> other things that should be added, but instead think about what should 
> be removed. I fear it's gotten a bit bloated.
> I look forward to a friendly discussion about this tomorrow!
> -Scott

Received on Tuesday, 7 June 2022 20:23:52 UTC